Suchen

Ergebnis der Suche

• Das Auftreten, die Entwicklung und die Aufnahme von Gefahren für die Gesellschaft in den ungarischen Strafgesetzen

  105-120

  Views:

  153

  Gesellschaftsgefährdung ist das vielleicht umstrittenste Begriffselement des Kriminalitätsbegriffs des Strafgesetzbuches. Dieses Konzept spielt eine herausragende Rolle bei der Bestimmung der innerstaatlichen strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit. Seine Notwendigkeit wurde im 20. Jahrhundert von anerkannten Rechtswissenschaftlern auf dem Gebiet des Strafrechts in unserem heutigen Strafgesetzbuch diskutiert.

   

  Im sozialistischen Strafrecht der Zeit vor dem Regimewechsel wurde der Begriff der Gesellschaftsgefährdung verwendet, um den "Klasseninhalt" des Strafrechts auszudrücken. Nach den ’90er Jahren wurde dieser Begriff – in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, im Bereich der Gesetzgebung und der Strafverfolgung gleichermaßen – von inhaltlichen Elementen bereinigt, die aus dem sowjetischen Recht übernommen wurden und parteistaatlichen Zwecken dienten. Heutzutage hat die Definition der Gesellschaftsgefährdung keine ideologische, parteipolitische Bedeutung mehr, so dass ein erheblicher Teil der mit dem Strafrecht vertrauten Rechtswissenschaftler und in der Rechtsprechung als begriffliches Äquivalent der aus der deutschen Dogmatik übernommenen materiellen Illegalität angesehen wird. (Újvári, 2003)

   

   

  In diesem Beitrag stelle ich die Entstehung und Rezeption des Begriffs der Gefahr für die Gesellschaft sowohl im ungarischen Strafrecht als auch in der Strafrechtsprechung dar, und zwar von der vorangegangenen Periode – in der die formale Illegalität angewandt wurde – bis zum aktuell – geltenden Strafgesetzbuch.

• A társadalomra veszélyességben való tévedés gyakorlati jelentősége a gazdasági bűncselekmények kapcsán

  Views:

  45

  In this study I examined the error, one of the grounds for the preclusion and termination of punishability. Grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, mean that punishability shall be precluded. Error, as an obstacle of the preclusion of punishability, doesn’t happened as usually as other grounds for the preclusion of punishability, for example: insane mental state, constraint and menace. The error means- 27. §- the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact, of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude punishability, if it is caused by negligence, and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence. I examined how often the judge accept an error, if the person commit a crime, for example: tax fraud, practise usury, bribe somebody. Is it exceptional or not? When can the perpetrator of a crime refer to error? What examine judge?

• Tévedés jogtörténeti fejlődésének egyes állomásai, különös tekintettel Bernolák Nándor tévedés tanára

  Views:

  50

  I examine one of the grounds for the preclusion of culpability and grounds for the termination of culpability: error. Grounds for the preclusion of culpability are the followings: infancy, abnormal mental condition, constraint and menace, error, negligible degree of danger to society of an act, self-defence, extreme necessity (emergency), absence of private motion, other grounds defined in the Act. Grounds for the termination of culpability are: the death of the perpetrator, prescription, remission, cessation or becoming negligible of the dangerousness for society of the act, other grounds defined in the Act.

  Grounds for the preclusion of culpability and grounds for the termination of culpability mean that culpability shall be precluded.

  Error - as an obstacle of the preclusion of culpability – is not as usual as other grounds for the preclusion of culpability, for example: insane mental state, constraint or menace. Error means - 27. § of the Hungarian Criminal Code – that the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude culpability, if it is caused by negligence and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence.

  I examine error’s ruling from Roman law to now days. One of the most important books was written by Nandor Bernolak: The Error doctrine. I succeeded Bernolak’s method to search how error was regulated in different ages. Bernolak wrote his essay in 1910, so he described the rules of error as it appeared in Code Csemegi. I follow his method during the examination of 1950.:II. Criminal Code of General Part, 1961. IV. Criminal Code and finally 1978. IV. Criminal Code.

  I found many differences and similarities between Criminal Codes, Propositions, and finally I compiled a table about the changes of the development in error’s legal history.

  There is a rule that is known generally from Roman law: „ignorantia facti, non iuris excusat”, which means: ignorance of the law means no excuse.

• A tévedés jelentőségének egyes aspektusai az élet, testi épség elleni bűncselekmények körében

  Views:

  48

  I examined one of the grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, which is error. Grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, mean that punishability shall be precluded.

  The error means- 27.§- the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact, of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude punishability, if it is caused by negligence, and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence.

  I examined how often the judge accept an error, if the person believe that he’s in the right, because he was attecked, or direct emergency menace. Or maybe he believes, that he is in danger of his life.   Is it exceptional or not? What examine judge? It isn’t only hypothetical question, because very complicated task for the judge.